Three PACE members attended the Domestic Relations Committee meeting today

at Indiana Judicial Administration. This was the first meeting
that we'dbeen able to attend for a few months since the
December meeting was a partof the Judicial Conference and
was not in Indianapolis.

Much of today's meeting was on the topic of the mediation project. At this

point, it appears that the mediators will come from a pool of
"seniorjudges" who are available to the courts
for various needs. A senior judgeis, basically, a retired
judge who has been approved for ongoing duties asassigned
by the courts. They may conduct trials or hearings, or do otherapproved
work. They are paid only $50/day for their work, however, butachieving
a minimum number of hours per year results in ongoing benefits(health
insurance, etc.) paid by the state. As a result, and for very littleadditional
money, the court can train and use these experienced people toact
as mediators. Since mediation has been identified as a revenueopportunity
for members of the Bar and others, care has to be taken that thesenior
judges do not appear to be performing work at a subsidized rate. Assuch,
it is probable that access to these low-cost mediators will beprimarily
reserved for Legal Aid/Legal Services, indigent, IV-D cases andsome
pro se litigants. Nominal charges may still apply, with such chargesreimbursing
the state for a portion of the expense. This program will not bea
"mediation entitlement" program, which would not be popular at astatehouse already struggling to address a serious budget
shortfall. Allthings considered, I believe that this
program is still at least a yearaway, probably more
(16-18 months?).

Several bills of interest to the Committee (and us!) are before the
General

Assembly. These include:

HB1335 - Allen County (Ft. Wayne) has had a successful
mediation/alternative

dispute resolution program going for
a few years now. The funding on theprogram comes
primarily from a $20 surcharge for divorce filing fees. Thereis
a bill before the legislature to permit other counties to enact similarprograms.
The bill's author thought that the Domestic Relations Committeewould
review the various court plans for similar programs andapprove/disapprove
them. The committee has no time or funding for such, butis
interested in knowing what the various courts are doing in this regard.

It is likely that the bill will pass the legislature in a revised form to

permit the counties to begin such programs of their own volition,
and obtainfunding from filing fees.

SB178 - In its brief description to the Committee, it appeared to be a

requirement for placing a social security number on hunting or
fishinglicenses. Ostensibly, this would be so that the
SSNs could be run against adatabase of obligors having
child support arrearages. (Apparently, those whodon't pay
child support are likely to hunt and fish with their extra time..or
more likely because they need the food!) The bill sponsors said that onbills
of this type, there always seemed to be organized opposition, and wereafraid
that the bill would not even get a hearing. The "real concern" (callto action) is that some $30,000,000 in Title IV-D funding to the
state is atrisk due to federal guidelines (requirements).
The committee was ready torecommend legislative committee
action (hearing, passage) on the bill "asis"
until we pointed out that there was a lot more to the bill than theoverview
clearly stated. For one thing, the proposed revisions to theIndiana
Code would mean that notice to someone whose license(s) were beingrevoked
was no longer required. With the additional changes the billsuggests,
the person who then has no notice would also no longer be assureda
hearing to address the allegations against them. This caused the Committeegreat concern, and what was originally a "sure thing"
for recommendationbecame the subject of suggested
revisions. I believe that some of theconcepts will pass
in some form so as to not jeopardize the $30,000,000, butbelieve
it will be a substantially stripped-down version: only the minimumsrequired
to retain the funding. The bill is being pushed by FSSA and IV-Dfolks
as the only way to retain federal funding, but in its present form, itwould
also substantially lower their administrative requirements (costs).

HB1336 - This bill sponsored by Pond and Hasler "..establishes a
rebuttable

presumption that joint legal parenting is in
the best interest of thechild..". Note the new
language: "parenting" rather than "custody". Itremoves
all the issues the court would have considered in IC 31-9-2-67 (suchas
the wishes of the child, close/beneficial relationship between the childand
person seeding custody, living in proximity with the other parent, etc.)and
leaves ONLY "..whether the persons who would be jointly parenting areable to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child's
welfare." Notethat the new language removes the
requirement that they be "willing"."Ability"
is required, not "willingness". That could result in someinteresting
courtroom questioning! "Oh, you're are ABLE but just not WILLINGto
communicate? That meets the test for joint parenting!" <G>
Unfortunately,the Committee remains split on their
recommendation of this bill, so it isunlikely to even see
a committee hearing. New member Judge Scopelitis (St.Joseph
County) argued strongly and passionately for the committee torecommend
the bill's passage. Judge Donahue (Clark Co.), the committeechair,
was also in favor of it, though not as outspoken. Judge Cynthia Ayres(Marion
Co.) was the most outspoken AGAINST it. In the end, the Committeeremains
with "no recommendation". Each year, though, we are getting morepeople in power who are in favor of the change. It is likely that
the billwill pass the House, and it is just as likely
that Senator Bray (apracticing Morgan Co. atty and
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee)will fail to
even give it a hearing in his committee... meaning it will diethere...
again.

SB223 - Requires a court to order DNA testing if a party challenges
the

accuracy of a non-DNA test in a paternity action. The
Committee felt thatmost contested paternity actions were
now using DNA testing anyway. The costhas dropped from
$800 to about $200 (less than 1 month's child support, bymy
observation!). There was actually more discussion of the hospitalpaternity
form which (presumed) fathers are encouraged to sign at birth.This
form acknowledges that they are the father, and have the rights andobligations
of such, simply by signing it. No test. If there aresecond-thoughts,
they'd better come within a VERY short period of time... 30days
by my recollection... or there is no recourse. The IV-D folks wouldrather
have a name to go after than confirming that the man really is thefather.
There have been several court cases challenging the form when a DNAtest
later confirms no biological relationship. Even if fraud is present,the
"father" only has a limited amount of time to figure it out! If thelegislature has time to deal with the bill, I'd expect it to
pass.

HB1077/HB1245 - Provides that a child support arrearage order can be

enforced through the same alternatives as a child support decree:
contempt,wage assignment, other remedies. The committee
would not go so far, however,to recommend HB1245 which
would allow recovery from certain retirement planfunds,
such as TERF (teachers retirement fund) and PERF (public employees).

Again, these bills are being primarily driven by the child support

enforcement
office.

HB1192 - Provides that an unemancipated child of 18 who is not
attending

school, but may only be partially-supporting
themselves, might have amodification of their child
support order rather than termination of it.There would
be no modification or termination, however, if the child was notattending
school or employed because they were caring for a physicallydisabled
custodial parent. While the judges said that they often reducechild
support in such "partial emancipation" cases, the committee had noopinion on a recommendation, and thought the bill looked like
it'sintroduction probably satisfied someone's
constituent. It appears to me tobe a heart-wrenching way
to get the obligor to continue to support thecustodial
parent. It all ends eventually... plan ahead!

Finally, there was a fair amount of discussion on the problem of
expedited

child support modification hearings for
reservists being called to activeduty. Reservists called
to active duty could have a substantial decrease inincome,
possibly for an expended period of time! Income withholding would beshifted
from the employer to the military, which could result in theaccumulation
of a substantial arrearage and/or the inability of thereservist
to support themselves. The "bottom line" to this discussion wasthat when the reservist-parent is notified to "get his
things in order", oneof those things should be to
file a motion for child support modificationwith the
court. Without that, the Indiana court CANNOT retroactively modifythe
support obligation! National action to include language in the "Soldiersand Sailors Relief Act" (which prevents foreclosure of
active duty militaryhomes and other things) could address
this problem for all states, but asyet, that hasn't
happened. The courts will be requested to expeditehearings,
but most courts would be hard-pressed to even get an emergencyhearing
scheduled within 30 days. The Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act does(supposedly)
prevent any hearings in the reservist's absence, so the matterwould
be continued until their return. Of course, there is a matter of"recovery"
if support is retroactively reduced. Judge Ayres thought that thefeds
should be required to make up the support deprived from children. I'dagree,
but extend it to say that they should also make up the self-supportdeprived
for the reservist at the same time! When the family sufferseconomic
hardship, it should NOT just be the noncustodial parent who doesall
the suffering.

Again, thanks to Jerry Jarman for bringing this last item to the
attention

of the Committee and our state senators. I
encourage others of you to speakup when you find these
issues which need attention!

One such issue is the matter of Indiana child support guidelines. Four years

have passed since the last changes were determined and adopted
(1998). Thefeds require that CS Guidelines be reviewed
every 4 years to make sure thatthey continue to be
economically justifiable and applied equitably. Thatreview
will happen over the course of the spring and summer, possiblyculminating
in a presentation to the statewide Judicial Conference inDecember.
I will let you know where email can be sent to the Committee, aswell
as the time/place for a public hearing (probably July 19th in theSupreme
Court chambers). As indicated above, the Committee DOES listen toindividuals!
Items of concern which have been brought to their attentionalready
include the 10% credit (one Committee member said that noncustodials"..should
not be paid to see their kids..", which is now she sees the 10%!Your
observations may differ!!!), treatment of Subchapter S income forminority
business owners, abatement during extended visitation (how much,what
constitutes "extended visitation"?), abatement of support whileincarcerated ("..ain't gonna happen..!"), and others.
If you have identifiedyour concerns, get your thoughts
together in preparation for your upcomingopportunity to
make a difference! You may not even have to take a day offwork
to do it!

I apologize for the length of this email, but without the regular production

of a PACE newsletter, still wanted you to know that things
continue tohappen... more good than bad... for non-intact
Indiana families. As usual,there is always more need than
the existing manpower can address. If youhave the time
and interest, but don't know where you can be effective,please
let me know: I have some suggestions! There are things which may nottake
more than a few hours a month, and there are things which could takeseveral
hours a week. You determine how big a difference you want to make,and
how much time you have to do it. There's no lack of opportunity!